Appeal No. 1998-1472 Page 30
Application No. 08/427,721
persuaded that teachings from the prior art would appear to
have suggested the claimed limitations of “the material
comprising the optical disk is further capable of having
multiple holographic gratings at each one of the plural
locations within the disk, each holographic grating within
each one of the plural locations being created at a different
point of focus” or “the material comprising the optical disk
is further capable of having holographic gratings at plural
sets of the plural locations within the disk, the holographic
gratings within a particular set of the plural locations being
created at a same point of focus which is different from a
point of focus used to create holographic gratings within
other of the plural sets of plural locations.” The examiner
impermissibly relies on the appellants’ teachings or
suggestions. He fails to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims
164 and 165 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bjorklund
in view of Takeda.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007